select_zero_crossing

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation changes selection boundaries rather than audio, and adds practical context about why (click-free cuts). It does not mention every edge case (e.g., no selection), but the risk surface is minimal for a zero-parameter selection adjustment.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, with the action stated first and the purpose second. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema selection operation, the description provides the essential purpose, the trigger condition, and the benefit. Nothing needed to decide whether to invoke it is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters and the input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description cannot add parameter detail, but this is not a gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Adjust'), a precise resource ('current selection boundaries'), and the criterion ('nearest zero crossings'). It clearly distinguishes this from generic selection or editing siblings by focusing on zero-crossing alignment as a preparation for cuts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear usage context: use it before cuts to avoid audible clicks. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the intended workflow is unmistakable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.